Designing the Set for a Production of Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler
By Samantha V. Schaeffer
B.A. May 2006, Michigan State University
A Thesis submitted to
The faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of the George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Fine Arts
May 17th, 2009
Thesis Directed by
Carl Gudenius Associate Professor of Theatre
Abstract of Thesis
This document contains information regarding the designing of the set for a
Master's Thesis production of Henrik Ibsen's Hedda Gabler. It includes: a brief history of
Henrik Ibsen, the collaborative process between the designer and the director, how the requirements of this show were met, the research process, how to establish a visually stimulating design, the build process, adjustments to the design once it was built, what was accomplished from this experience, research images and drafting plates.
ii Table of Contents
Abstract of Thesis…………………………………………………………………………ii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….iv
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1
Chapter 1: Ibsen’s History and Societal Impact…………………………………..………3
Chapter 2: Meetings with the Director…………...……………….…………………….....7
Chapter 3: Determining the Needs …...……………….…………………………….…...10
Chapter 4: Inductive Research …………………………….……………..……...………12
Chapter 5: Long Distance Collaborative Development.…………….………...…………18
Chapter 6: Development of the Final Design……………………...………….…………27
Chapter 7: Finding the “Cool”…………………………………………………...………34
Chapter 8: The Build Process………………...……………...…………..………………38
Chapter 9: Tweaking the Design..……………………..……….………...……...…….…41
Chapter 10: Conclusion…………………………………………………………..………44
Works Cited……………...…………………...………….………………………………47
Appendix………………………………………………….……………………...………50
iii List of Figures
Figure 1: Oslo. Dunker Villa…………………………………………………………….14
Figure 2: Oslo. Frognersteren……………………………………………………………15
Figure 3: Sandvik, Vestfold. Railway Station…………………………………………...15
Figure 4: Reykjavik. House at Laufasvegur……………………………………………..15
Figure 5: CHAIRS - Without arms - Entirely wood…………………………………..…16
Figure 6: CHAIRS – With arms – Upholstered back and seat, back partly open………..16
Figure 7: COUCHES – One end only – Upholstered……………………………………16
Figure 8: DESKS – Multiple legs – With superstructure………………………………..16
Figure 9: TABLES – Platform with feet – Large, centre column………………………..17
Figure 10: TABLES – With flaps – Three and four legs………………...………………17
Figure 11: Rendering. Version 1…………………………………………………………19
Figure 12: Floorboard research…………………………………………………………..19
Figure 13: Railing research………………………………………………………………19
Figure 14: Bench research……………………………………………………………….19
Figure 15: Second level research………………………………………………………...19
Figure 16: Fireplace research…………………………………………………………….19
Figure 17: Front framework research………………………………………..………19, 36
Figure 18: House exterior research………………………………………………………19
Figure 19: Rendering. Version 2, with center wall……………………………………...21
Figure 20: Rendering. Version 2, without center wall…………………………………..21
Figure 21: Wallpaper research…………………………………………………………...21
Figure 22: Portrait research. Louis Comfprt Tiffany, Self Portrait……………..……..21, 32
iv Figure 23: Rendering. Version 3, without center wall…………………..……………….22
Figure 24: Rendering. Version 3, with center wall…………………….………………...22
Figure 25: Rendering. Version 4, with center wall…………………………….………...24
Figure 26: Rendering. Version 4, without center wall……………………….…………..24
Figure 27: Furniture, wainscoting, wallpaper research………………..……………..24, 35
Figure 28: Rendering. Version 5…………………………………………………………25
Figure 29: Stove research………………………………………………………………...26
Figure 30: Final Production photo 1……………………………………………………..28
Figure 31: Final Production photo 2……………………………………………………..28
Figure 32: Window research……………………………………………………………..29
Figure 33: Final fireplace photo………………………………………………………….30
Figure 34: Wall fabric purchased………………………………………………………...31
Figure 35: Final Portrait photo…………………………………………………………...32
Figure 36: Landscape research. Wilhelm von Gegerfelt, Mussel-pickers at Villerville....32
Figure 37: Final Landscape photo……………………………………………………….32
Figure 38: Curtain fabric purchased……………………………………………………..42
Figure 39: Final Production photo 3…………………………………………………….43
Figure 40: Edvard Munch, Moonlight…………………………………………………………54
Figure 41: Edvard Munch, The Kiss……………………………………………………………54
Figure 42: Edvard Munch, Vampire……………………………………………………………54
Figure 43: Edvard Munch, Ashes……………………………………………………………….54
Figure 44: Edvard Munch, Separation………………………………………………………...55
Figure 45: Edvard Munch, Melancholy……………………………………………….....55
v Figure 46: Built-in shelving research…………………………………………………….56
Figure 47: Chair research………………………………………………………………...56
Figure 48: Living room door and hinge research……………………………………...... 56
Figure 49: Living room desk and chair research…………………...…………………....56
Figure 50: Green door, blue wainscoting, and red hallway research……… … ……...56
Figure 51: Front Elevation...... 57
Figure 52: Groundplan...... 58
Figure 53: Section View...... 59
Figure 54: Deck Elevation...... 60
Figure 55: Deck Setup Elevation...... 61
Figure 56: Living Room Wall Elevation...... 62
Figure 58: Wall Section...... 63
Figure 57: Study and Hallway Wall Elevation...... 64
Figure 59: Wall Section...... 65
Figure 60: Study and Hallway Wall Elevation...... 66
Figure 61: Trellis Elevation...... 67
Figure 62: Step, Door, and Fireplace Elevation...... 68
vi Introduction
Every MFA Graduate student at the end of their second year, become faced with the
daunting undertaking of their 3rd year Thesis design. My path into this endeavor was both
daunting and turned out to be quite an undertaking. Through much debate between
Halloween and social plays (the performance dates were Halloween weekend); the choices
were narrowed to Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston’s Dracula and Ibsen’s Hedda
Gabler. From the beginning of the process, I had expressed a desire to choose a realistic interior space for my design. My past designs have always been abstract ones, and I felt I had an obvious hole in my design portfolio where an interior design needed to go. In the end the director chose Hedda Gabler due to a combination of my thesis style request, the number of male to female roles, and to the actors we had to fill them.
I was very excited to be given such a renowned work to design, since it was the first
Ibsen show done at GWU in at least thirty years. I wanted my design to make an impression no matter what play was chosen. With Hedda Gabler as my vehicle I needed to find a road of
inspiration to reach a final design. The path to the final was in no way a clear cut nor even
linear one.
All I knew at that start was that Ibsen’s work, with its precise dialogue, speaks for
itself. Every theme, emotion, and conflict is so carefully written, I was confident about
creating a realistic, interior space. This would hopefully lead the audience to delve into
Ibsen’s world and would have a greater chance at taking away the significance of the story.
The audience would walk in and feel almost at home in a real world setting and be more
susceptible to Hedda’s anguish, or Thea’s bravery. I wanted to have the juxtaposition of a
solid world around wavering, manipulating and crumbling characters.
1 The focus of this paper will include my entire design process; from my initial
hindrances and enduring struggles, to the final design I described above. I will cover a brief
background on Ibsen and the play, conversations and meetings with the director, how I came
to a final design through research, script/director/thesis requirements, and about my struggle
to decide on design details, the process of building the show, final changes to the set, and my
concluding thoughts on this process and what I believed I have achieved.
This became a greater process of personal development and of the dynamics of the collaborative group. Throughout the design process of Hedda Gabler, I assumed the task of researching specific elements to realize the practical and aesthetic objectives of the scenic design. How I learned to distill and organize appropriate elements for thematic and required elements of this show, and then using these elements effectively to create a cohesive design will be chronicled in this paper.
2 Chapter 1: Ibsen’s History and Social Impact
Henrik Ibsen (1828 – 1906) was a foremost 19th Century playwright. He is often
referred to as the “Father of Modern Drama”, and lived the majority of his life in Norway.
Today he is regarded as one of the foremost and influential playwrights of the modern era.
Ibsen was born March 20th, 1828 in Skien until his father’s bankruptcy moved them to
Venstop in 1835. He then moved to Grimstad to work as a pharmacist, all the while spending
his night writing his first play Catiline. In 1850, Ibsen moved to Christiana (later known as
Kristiana, then Oslo), where he began his career as a playwright. One of the most pivotal times in Ibsen’s life was during the spring and summer of 1852 in Copenhagen and Dresden.
Here it is believed that he got his first viewings of Shakespeare. Other highlights in Henrik
Ibsen’s life include: became the artistic director at the Kristiania Norske Theater, was present
for the opening of the Suez Canal in Egypt, and became an art jury member at the Universal
Exhibition in Vienna. He was also accomplished in Latin, French and was fluent in German
(Moi 53-56). While Ibsen began his interest in becoming a playwright at an early age, I believe that it was through his trip to Copenhagen and Dresden that he saw his potential and how influential his position could truly be.
Ibsen’s take on the theatre and his style of writing was rejected for a time in the
Christiana community due to the Nationalism ideals of the city. Theatre in itself was also a relatively new institution in Christiana. It wasn’t until 1827 that the first permanent theatre was built, and only 23 years later, in 1850 was Ibsen’s first play (The Burial Mound)
produced. However his first written play Catiline, was written that same year and
consequently rejected for production by the Chrisitiana Theatre due to its lack of a
Norwegian hero. Catiline had a Roman hero, which Ibsen though had a more worldly
3 relevance “But in Christiania, the wake of 1848 had brought an intensification of national fervor” (Moi 41).
In 1850, Ibsen arrived to the young theatre and artistic world of Christiana. The growing city’s focus was on “that of forging a national culture” (Moi 147). Norwegian art, literature, poems, paintings and plays idealized themes of Norwegian heroes and heroines; all of which were inspired from a vast Icelandic and Viking past, handed down from folk songs and lore. Norwegian farmers were thought to be the essence of Norwegian nationalists, claiming to be uninfluenced by foreigners for over 500 years. “Romantic nationalism ruled unchallenged” (Moi 147). In contrast to what seems like a city on the verge of an artistic explosion, Christiana was also a heavily influenced city by the Lutheran Church.
Norway was a Lutheran state with essentially no diversity to speak of. Proof of such is quoted from Hoatmaelingen, “Den evangelisk-lutherske”, http://www.hf.ntnu.no/din/hostmalingen.html from the Norwegian Constitution: “The evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the official religion of the state. The inhabitants who profess it, have a duty to raise their children in the same. Jesuit and monastic orders must not be tolerated. Jews still remain excluded from access to the realm” (Moi 48). The ban on monastic orders was lifted in 1897, however the exclusion of Jesuits remained until 1956,
(still no word on the prohibiting of Jews). In regards to the art world, Moi states, “pietism was hostile to theater, to any kind of performance, and to art itself. Dance, song, music, and card games were considered the devil’s work” (148). All of these examples of the kind of world Ibsen was trying to write in gives great explanation to how some modernists called his earlier work “old-fashioned and passé” (Moi 32). Ibsen had a way of writing seemingly
4 ordinary characters, into seemingly ordinary activities and conversations. But he clearly had a much greater underlying objective to stories he told.
Ibsen’s popularity grew, among fans there were also critics. In the height of his day a
majority of his plays were considered immoral and scandalous. They played heavily against
the standards of 19th century values and probed beneath the facades of strict Victorian living.
Ibsen’s contemporary’s considered plays that glimpsed into basic human nature to reveal issues of morality disconcerting. Hedda Gabler became a perfect venue for keeping the world of his play within Norway nationalism ideals, while branching into modern and
controversial matters. “When we consider that Ibsen has always been associated with
modernization, with modern cultural conflicts, and most particularly with the struggle for
women’s freedom and equality, such blanket denials of the radical potential of realism
become incomprehensible. All over Europe in the 1880s and 1890s Ibsen was denounced by
moralizing conservatives and championed by socialists and feminists” (Moi 25). Ibsen’s
triumphs include theories that he is the most important playwright since Shakespeare as well
as an estimate of over 100 Ibsen plays produced worldwide every year. This includes our
play of discussion: Hedda Gabler.
Hedda Gabler premiered to a German audience in 1891 where it received negative
reviews. Ibsen’s play was given another try on Broadway in 1902. This time, Hedda Gabler
was so popular that the very successful first run was followed up by a second run with the
same leading actress in 1903. Since then Hedda Gabler has been said to be the most
performed of Ibsen’s plays, where the themes and characters remain as relevant today as they
did over one hundred years ago. “The indignant, contemptuous, withering criticisms that
Hedda Gabler received when it came out, both in Scandinavia and in Britain, surprise us
5 today, when the play is probably Ibsen’s most popular, with more regular productions to it
credit than all but the top Shakespearean handful… Those early reviewers who shuddered at
the picture it gave of contemporary society, in Norway and elsewhere in the West, were at
least responding to and acknowledging Ibsen’s unflinching awareness of moral inadequacy
and self-blindness, paying tribute to the darkness which sooner or later shows itself to be the inner state of all its people” (Binding 123). It is because of this impact that Ibsen’s plays had on his contemporary society that we remember, and it is also because of the impact that
Ibsen’s plays have on our modern society that we still produce them. Ibsen’s career was marked by three major writing styles. Because of the severe nationalism in Christiania when he began his career, he first wrote historical plays including Norma (1851), The Feast at
Solhaug (1855), and The Vikings at Helgeland (1857).Once his fame grew, Ibsen became a naturalistic playwright, writing plays on present social issues; such as Peter Gynt (1867), A
Doll's House (1879), and An Enemy of the People (1882). Then he matured to write symbolic pieces that focused on core human relationships. “Ibsen soon turned in new directions. In The
Wild Duck (1884), Rosmersholm (1886), The Master Builder (1892), John Gabriel Borkman
(1896), and When We Dead Awaken (1899) he made increasing use of symbolism and of
subjects more concerned with personal relationships than with social problems” (Brockett
468). Henrik Ibsen wrote themes that have transcended the decades to substantiate his fame
to modernism in drama.
6 Chapter 2: Meetings with the Director
The job of the set designer is to create a world for the play in which the characters
live. I wanted to have a few ideas about this world already thought out before my initial
meeting with our director Alan Wade. I immediately knew a few things about this world
from my initial readings of the script. While there were a number of required functional
elements, the design on a whole was up for numerous interpretations, so I had to develop my personal aesthetic.
As a designer I am attracted to abstract interpretations of literal things. I find set designs that strip away obvious interpretations to reveal a more thought provoking stylized way of looking at a given world to be most appealing. I always enjoy translating the themes from the script into visual elements. My bias toward abstract interpretations would be beneficial to this show since there are so many subtle as well as obvious themes written into
Hedda Gabler.
My first design concept was an abstract interior space, with rows of mirrors, paintings, no walls, and suspended moulding. I had a brief discussion of these thoughts with
Dr. Wade prior to our first scheduled sit-down meeting, and he also suggested the possibility of physically moving the moulding lined “walls” in tighter. Eventually, I decided these ideas would be much too literal to the emotions of the play and expressing them was better left to the talent of the actors.
During the first few official meetings with Dr. Wade, we discussed how important the influences of art and architecture had over making this a realistic yet suggestive space to the era and themes that Hedda Gabler expresses.
7 I had brought in books on Norwegian architecture and artists to start visualizing the feel of a set for which Dr. Wade was looking. For the architectural aspects, we focused on home layouts to find what would make the most sense for our show, while evoking the actual time period. We then turned our focus to paintings of interior Norwegian homes, looking at the colors of the walls, room layouts, decorations, and moods, trying to find ones that fit specific aspects of Hedda’s world.
We agreed to convey the emotions of the play and Hedda within the set with color and decoration choices. Through this initial research we looked at paintings that led us to a need for a darker interior space, Hedda’s dark place. The rest of the set’s standards (walls, floor, fabrics) should be bright and cheery with a Nordic air. These design choices would articulate my intention for a strong juxtaposition between the script and the space.
The first challenge of designing a set, any set, in the Dorothy Betts Theatre is overcoming the reflex to match a stage footprint to the Betts’ three-quarter rounded thrust stage. The first design concept I showed the Director was a rectangular space on a 45 degree angle that had two open and exposed levels with no walls. This idea didn’t serve the director’s needs of a more intimate space. He wanted the inner room to be center stage with the ability to be closed off. This would ensure the audience separation from Hedda for the final moments before, during and after she shot herself. At this suggestion I showed him my very first design concept that I had disregarded on my own. The detail ideas of a wall-less space with mirrors and paintings were still left behind, however the overall shape was a better jumping off point for the director’s vision.
From May to August 2008, I worked with Dr. Wade to complete a visual package.
The following four chapters will describe how I determined what was required in the design,
8 my research process, the five versions of the design I developed over the summer, and how we achieved a final design.
9 Chapter 3: Determining the Needs
There are many factors that navigate the decisions needed to design a set for any given production. The first clue should come directly from the script. What does the play require to adhere to the text? Does it reference set specifications from the dialogue or written notes? Hedda Gabler called for obvious and necessary set requirements including a main room, a smaller inner room, windows, a fireplace, an exit from each room, a garden entrance, a piano, settee, table and chairs, a writing desk, and the portrait of General Gabler.
The second factor to incorporate is the director’s objective. Do they have something specific that they are looking for in theme, color, placement, space? Dr. Wade had a few things that he requested of me. He asked for the garden exit to be up one of the isles of the house, that the fireplace was placed downstage center, and that there was a way to close off the inner room from the audience.
The final factor that can be considered, depending on the type of project, is the designer’s own. For this production, as my final Thesis design, I wanted my perspective to be more relevant than it would normally be on any other design project. Through general thought I established that I wanted to have some sort of hanging unit downstage to represent the exterior of the home, to have a unique footprint so the director would not be tempted to block actors onto the black Betts floor, and to visually achieve thematic elements. Once I dove into the research process I discovered more specific details that I wanted to incorporate and would try to hold fast.
Sometimes there are script requirements that can be altered based on the way the director is choosing to present the play. A famous example of this is the 1971 production of
William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream where the play was not performed in a
10 traditional representation of a forest, but in a completely white, box theatre with trapeze artists as the actors. GW’s production of Hedda Gabler was not meant to be so extreme. Dr.
Wade and I stayed true to the script’s request as it was all necessary for the action of the actors from their own dialogue. There needed to be a separate room for Hedda, there must be a couch for Hedda and Lovborg to sit on, there needed to be a desk for Hedda to hide the manuscript in, a fireplace was needed to burn it, and so on.
However, as true to the script as we did stay, there were two things in particular that we did convert. Because of Dr. Wade’s request of a fireplace downstage, mixed with research of fireplaces of the time period, I chose to go with a coal burning stove rather than a full fireplace. We also agreed to have the actor mime the opening and closing of windows rather than actually having them, because of our thrust and the Director’s need of having the actors face the audience for those “window” moments.
11 Chapter 4: The Preliminary Research
Before I continue to reference pieces from my research, I should explain my research
progress. As I mentioned in the Introduction of this paper, this was not a linear design
process and a large part of the jumping around that happened was because of my continuous
research. Before I had determined the needs of this show (the entirety of Chapter 4) I read
texts on the themes, insights, and history of Hedda Gabler and Ibsen. The two sources I
found most informative were With Vine Leaves in His Hair: The Role of the Artist in Ibsen’s
Plays by Paul Binding and Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism : Art, Theater,
Philosophy by Toril Moi. These books gave me a clearer perspective on what style of set I
wanted to achieve. Both texts discuss Hedda’s darkness. Binding claims that Hedda is
bounded by denial and that it pulls her into a dark, futureless existence that has driven her to
bitterly resent everything that surrounds her. Binding specifically describes her personal
afflictions radiating from her relationship with her late father: “Over the sitting-room that is
part of the play’s set hangs a portrait of General Gabler, whose surname Ibsen imposed on
the work’s title (initially it was just called Hedda), in order, as he said, to show that his
eponymous central character is still more daughter than wife – or, more specifically, late military man’s daughter rather than up-and-coming academic’s wife. This portrait in itself therefore constitutes a denial of the future” (Binding 82). Through both these texts I gained the insight that Hedda recoils from anything ordinary or expected. I observed in the script that Hedda despises the fresh morning air, newly picked flowers, and by anything nurturing.
Moi points out that: “Throughout the play, Hedda identifies with heroic masculinity and despises femininity…In the world of Hedda Gabler the everyday has turned poisonous, and idealism has become an incomprehensible anachronism” (Moi 317-8).
12 These emotions wrought by Hedda were the major driving force behind my design
aesthetic. I wanted to find research to back up my vision of creating a main living room space
that was historically accurate to Norwegian design, as well as something that Hedda would
find revolting and perpetuate her distain. In contrast I needed to create an inner room for
Hedda to feel comfortable enough with for her to make it her own, to create a place for her to
loose herself in with her piano and her father’s portrait.
I found my aesthetic inspiration from a book titled: Scandinavia, Living Design by
Elizabeth Gaynor. This book had images in it ranging from old “Swiss” and “Dragon” style
inspirations through to modern Scandinavian bungalows with tradition touches. This book
provided me with every architectural detail. It showed examples of flooring, door styles,
fireplaces, windows, exterior designs, furniture, table cloths, wall styles, archways, garden
varieties, even food. This book had a visual reference and answer to any historical design
question I could have about Scandinavian homes. As perfect as this book was, it could not
have answered everything because it has no real text.
I had to find other books for textual facts. I had a few books describing the
architecture of the period as well as examples of floor plans of homes in Norway. I also
researched paintings of Norwegian interiors and of Norwegian painters to bring me further color inspiration.
Hedda Gabler was written in 1890. So from that date I needed to determine when the villa that our characters move into was built. The play says that Hedda mentioned the villa to
Tesman before they were married. It also suggested that it was an established property in which the prior owner died. I came to the conclusion that the house must have been built anywhere from 1850 – 1870. These dates drove my architectural research.
13 I found two books that gave me a brief history on the style of homes in that time frame. The first is Guthorm Kavli’s, Norwegian Architecture, Past and Present. I read that
two new styles of architecture appeared in Norway between 1850 and 1860 called the
“Swiss” style and the “Dragon” style. The “Swiss” style imitated the external characteristics
of Swiss wooden homes, including tall windows and sloping roofs. Another group of
architects became despondent with imitating foreign styles of homes and turned inward to
their own historical models of medieval old log houses and churches with carved dragons.
This return to classic Norwegian design hold true for the nationalistic movement of the era
that I discussed earlier in Ibsen’s history. “…it realized the desire to escape from foreign
influence and to express something essentially Norwegian” (Kavli 101-2).
The second book gave me a clearer history and better image references. Marian C.
Donnelly wrote in Architecture in the Scandinavian Countries that a compact wooden, single
dwelling with verandas on both sides of the exterior as well as carved details gave the home a
nostalgically Nordic feel. An example of this was the Dunker Villa built in 1848 or 1851 near
Oslo, where our play takes place, shown here:
Figure 1 Oslo. Dunker Villa. H.E. Schirmer. 1848 or 1851. (Dietrichson and Munthe, Holzbaukunst, plate 12.) Donnelly, pg. 276
This image was considered to be more of the “Swiss” style of architecture that was popular around the same time that the “Dragon” style began to emerge. Donnelly continued to write,
14 “horizontal log walls and porches with open arcades were further romanticized by the
Viking-inspired dragon heads at the roof peaks” (275).
From this book it was confirmed that “Swiss” style came before “Dragon” style, but by how many years was still not determined but from the example of a Dragon style home
built by Frognerseteren in 1890:
Figure 2 Oslo. Frognerseteren. H.Munthe 1890. (Dietrichson and Munthe, Holzbaukunst, plate 8.) Donnelly, pg. 276
There were also two other images from this text that
incorporated both “Swiss” and “Dragon” styles that fueled my thought process as to what
Hedda’s villa looked like from the outside.
Figure 3 Figure 4 Sandvik, Vestfold. Reykjavik. House at Railway Station.. G. Bull. Laufasvegur 31. 1873. (Dietrichson and (Reykjavik, Arbaer Munthe, Holzbaukunst, Museum.) plate 13.) Donnelly, pg. 249 Donnelly, pg. 261
While all these exterior images were helpful to my overall concept, I was not
designing the exterior of a house. These all were a great contribution to my preliminary
research.
Once I had these sources together, the next probing question I needed answered
before I dove into a design was, what style of furniture were we going to have in our
production? Hedda Gabler begins with Aunt Julia scrambling to get the house in order for
Hedda and Tesman’s arrival. It is revealed early on that she has bought all new furniture,
15 hopefully to Hedda’s liking. From what we know of Hedda, she comes from a higher society than Tesman. We assume that she is aware of and know the fashions and styles coming out of the chicest place in Europe, London. From this I came to the conclusion, as was approved by
Dr. Wade, that Aunt Julia would have bent over backwards to get the latest Victorian furniture of the 1890s into their new home. Once the furniture style was settled on 1890s
Victorian, I found an amazing reference book titled: Pictorial Dictionary of British 19th
Century Furniture Design : an Antique Collectors’ Club Research Project. It was an encyclopedia reference guide to all 19th century British furniture, as the title would imply. I chose these images to have in my head while designing the space as well as when the time would come to go digging through the TRDA furniture supply:
Fig. 6 Fig. 5 CHAIRS – With arms – CHAIRS – Without Upholstered back and arms – Entirely wood seat, back partly open Antique Collectors’ Antique Collectors’ Club Club pg. 242 pg. 175
Fig. 7 Fig. 8 COUCHES – One end DESKS – Multiple legs – only – Upholstered With superstructure Antique Collectors’ Antique Collectors’ Club Club pg. 317 pg. 344
16 Fig. 9 TABLES –Platform with Fig. 10 feet – Large, centre TABLES – With flaps column – Three and four legs Antique Collectors’ Antique Collectors’ Club pg. 484 Club pg. 514
Once I had all this research under my belt and laid out in front of me, it was time to start organizing it all. Not to be forgotten however, all this research was being conducted while the events in all the previous written chapters (especially chapters 3 & 4) were happening. Once all the back and forth from meetings to research to ideas and back to meetings and changes and more research, I finally came to a point where the final design started to take place. The following chapters will focus on the events involving the final design as seen by the audience.
17 Chapter 5: Long Distance Collaborative Development
I developed five renderings over the summer of 2008 long distance. I was up in the middle of nowhere Connecticut with my collaborative partners down in DC. This made coming up with a design an arduous task of slow, back and forth communication through emails and phone calls. This chapter will break down the progression from one version to the next over a four month period.
The first rendering I sent to Dr. Wade and to my Thesis Advisor, Mr. Gudenius, had elements that I borrowed directly from my number one resource book Elizabeth Gaynor’s
Scandinavia, Living Design.(Fig. 12-18) Drawing from this research, the basic structure, furniture placement and a possible color palette were approved by my director and advisor first. A number of design details were specifically suggested from this research.
Walls and floors of a traditional Norwegian homes consisted of large planks of wood; so I had loose ending floorboards as the basic footprint that did mimic the Bett’s three- quarter thrust shape. With this, I was trying to say that the room, or at most the house itself, extended past the limits of the stage floor.
The fireplace, green in color, was a full rectangular fireplace.
The front hanging piece was a synthesis of two elements in Gaynor’s book, and it also had a matching bottom with shrubbery. These pieces were to force the idea that we were looking into this home from the audience.
The second level, railing, and window bench were incorporated directly from
Gaynor’s images as well. I believed that a curtain could be added on either side of the upper room railing that would close off the space to provide the separation that Dr. Wade had requested.
18 Additionally, I added an enclosed ceiling over the upper room to give it the physical weight to match the emotional weight that was tied to the room as Hedda’s retreat.
Fig. 11 Rendering Version 1
Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Floorboard Railing Bench research research research Gaynor, pg. 71 Gaynor, pg. 114 Gaynor, pg. 227
Fig. 15 Fig. 16 2nd level Fireplace research research Gaynor, pg. 150 Gaynor, pg. 178
Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Front framework House exterior research research Gaynor, pg. 103 Gaynor, pg. 91
19 In retrospect, the most exciting thing about this first design attempt was observing the
elements that would survive through all of the design changes and be part of the final design.
They included: the general look and flow of the stage set, the white framework on the
hanging unit, the green of the fireplace, and the living room and upper level entrance
placements.
My next version (Fig. 19 - 20) was entirely altered based on Mr. Gudenius and Dr.
Wade’s feedback. A major change needed to happen to the front of the upper room. The
Director felt that having Hedda move from one end of the upper room to the other in purpose
of closing off the space was not timely and would take away from the moment. We came up
with the idea of having a front wall of scrim so we could see into the space when it was
dramatically effective (preshow, intermission, Hedda’s death reveal, post show) and be
realistically closed off for the majority of the play. This idea was rooted in my love for the
abstract and in the drama that theatre can create. Dr. Wade also wanted to see a new, more
detailed rendering that also showed the wallpaper design, especially if this was one I was
going to attempt to paint. We determined that the inner room ceiling needed to show more
detail in this new rendering, as well as be open for lighting purposes. We also discussed
changing the windows from two in the inner room, to one in the living room. This required a
change in the door placement. We altered a number of other elements: lowering the second
level by one step, having a six foot opening into the second level, making the hanging unit
bend to match the floor, reducing the size of the floor exterior wall piece, and we thoroughly
discussed furniture. Alan wanted a sitting area and a desk with a chair for each the inner and
outer rooms, the script required elements of a big chair and settee by the fireplace, and the piano front and center with the portrait of General Gabler. The portrait was a major element I
20 inadvertently omitted in my first rendering. My choice of portrait, I would like to point out, also made it through to the final concept.
Fig. 19 Rendering Version 2, with center wall
Fig. 20 Rendering Version 2, without center wall
Fig. 22 Portrait research Louis Comfort Tiffany Fig. 21 Self Portrait c.1870 – 75 Wallpaper Oil on canvas, 20 x 16 in. (50.8 research x 40.6 cm) Gaynor, pg. 68 National Academy of Design, New York(1257 – P) Peck, pg. 104 I had also added area rugs to my design. Dr. Wade was encouraging me to continue to
add and think about the details of this design as I continued to redesign the major elements.
21 This kind of multi-task thinking is an area that I am continuing to improve. This “one thing at a time” process was something that we all continued to struggle with to reach a final design.
My third rendering (Fig. 23) focused on the wall details and texture. This version did
not include furniture because I was still determining the style, color palette, and placement of
numerous furniture options. Structurally, we switched the windows and living room door
back to how they were in the first rendering. This time I showed texture roof shingles, more
specific wallpaper, a more definitively tiled and richer green fireplace, wood textured door
and window mouldings, wood planked floor, second level floor, and ceiling piece, a style of
piano I wanted, window curtains, and area rug ideas. We also removed the garden shrubbery,
which was visually distracting.
Fig. 23 Rendering Version 3, without center wall
Fig. 24 Rendering Version 3, with center wall
22 The feedback I got from this third version was focused on the missing furniture and
empty walls. This was a positive step in my progress because focusing on more detailed elements meant that my overall room was at a good stage in its development. My fourth rendering included blue wainscoting, and sconces inspired by Gaynor’s book images. I also added two general framed artworks to the front center wall, left and right of the arch. I decided that the sconces, wainscoting moulding, and painting frames would be solid on the scrim wall so the wallpaper, paintings, and blue base of the wainscoting would have provided a theatrical affect of disappearing when it was lit from behind. I researched a wide range of
Victorian furniture from numerous sources, including Gaynor’s book and many online resources. Working with the idea that Aunt Julia would have been importing the latest fashions of furniture from London for Hedda, I was able to justify a broader range of furniture options. We decided that an actual gate leading out from the house out to the garden was unnecessary. Dr. Wade thought lighting would create the affect of the garden without being as literal as having a gate right up at the house.
The most significant design change from the third version to the fourth version (Fig.
25 - 26) was eliminating the translucent wall, and replacing it with traditional opaque scenery
and enlargening the opening to ten feet to provide maximum visibility. It was apparent that
having scrim with solid moulding, wainscoting, sconces, and painting frames created concern
from the director with the ability to view the scene behind that those elements clearly. This
effect would also have been financially difficult to produce. By creating a solid wall with a
large ten foot opening, allowed three-quarters of the audience to see the important aspects of
the inner room without the technical and budgetary difficulties that scrim would have
imposed.
23 Fig. 25 Rendering Version 4, with center wall
Fig. 26 Rendering Version 4, without center wall
Fig. 27 Furniture, wainscoting, wallpaper research Gaynor, p. 69
Throughout this entire process thus far, I was stuck on a green inner room. I wanted this for the same reason I wanted a green fireplace and door. I felt that green was Hedda’s color. She is a manipulative, jealous, and rage filled character and for those traits I saw a sick and green woman. Dr. Wade liked the symbolism of having the fireplace green with a door to match, I had solid research images to support those choices, however he felt, and I agreed,
24 that theatrically green was the wrong color for walls. The color green in large surface areas is
known to create an undesirable reflective affect on human skin, but in the small instances that
I had in the door and fireplace was admired. Dr. Wade encouraged me to seek a new color
from Norwegian artists to find inspiration. I found it in the works by Norwegian painter
Edvard Munch. (Images, Fig. 40 – 45, by artist used can be found on page 59) I suggested
pewter lavender for the walls which it seen in much of Munch’s work. The limitations of the
rendering software prevented me from presenting that color clearly in my rendering, as seen
in Figure 28.
It was further suggested that I create a hard edge on the floor from my planks of wood to reflect the angles that the walls made upstage and raise the entire set nine inches. This would make a definite octagonal footprint and would help me create a shape and performance area compositionally independent from the Bett’s rounded three-quarter thrust
floor. This more definitive shape was inevitably to be changed one additional time.
Fig. 28 Rendering Version 5
Other significant changes that we had was removing the exterior, downstage walls completely, while leaving the white framework and adding two different hanging window elements stage left and stage right, to reinforce the performance footprint. Dr. Wade and Mr.
25 Gudenius also suggested having just one painting on the downstage left wall and leaving just
two sconces mirroring the opening, getting rid of the roof shingles completely, and finding a
more visually interesting fireplace design. Dr. Wade and Mr. Gudenius liked the color and
tile concept for the fireplace, but thought compositionally a large rectangle was too obtrusive
for audience views. Returning to my research, I found a rounded coal fireplace which stood
two feet in height rather than three feet. This element provided an important scenic element
at the center downstage area of the set.
Fig. 29 Stove research Source: Unknown
By the end of August we knew we were days away from having a completed design.
However, it was a month overdue. This put into perspective how strenuous it can be to keep up with a design while trying to communicate over a long distance. Dealing with infrequent phone calls and slow turnarounds from both sides grew frustrating. What increased the frustration for both parties was the knowledge of how much smoother all of this would have gone, had I been in DC. We all knew my abilities as a designer when I am in a personal situation. I come up with better ideas and better solutions to problems if I have my other collaborators across the table from me with the ability to bounce ideas back and forth. We all
were looking forward to getting back to face to face environment to finalize the design.
26 Chapter 6: Development of the Final Design
Once I was back in DC, I met with Dr. Wade and Mr. Gudenius on almost a daily basis to finalize my design. Adjustments were made to nearly every element, while other elements were removed and other things added. As I mentioned earlier, the footprint changed a final time. While, Dr. Wade liked the footprint that we had, he wondered if I could come up with another suggestion that would fill up the Bett’s floor and would give him a larger area for blocking. From that I came up with three new solutions and we went with the one you see in Figure 30 & 31. This was the best option for a few reasons, it filled up the Bett’s floor as far downstage as a solid rectangle would go, and the added bay-window shape downstage center, gave the floor visual interest as well as a classic fireplace nook that was apparent in my research. Once the footprint was finalized, I needed to adjust the size of the furthest down stage hanging unit to match the width of the fireplace nook, as well as come up with a new design for the hanging side windows. While I was trying to determine new side windows,
Mr. Gudenius asked me to have arched corners in my main opening from the living room to the inner room for added visual interest. I agreed to it, but decided that I needed a curved top to my stage right door as well for continuity in the design. I saw this decision as a great opportunity to have a continued continuity between the space above the door and the two hanging windows. I found the image I was looking for in Figure 32.
27 Fig. 30 Final Production photo 1
Fig. 31 Final Production photo 2
28 Fig. 32 Window research Gaynor, p. 226
From this I created the two hanging window units and continued that design into the window above the stage right door.
In my final version from the digital renderings, I had two built in shelving units. Each stood about four feet tall, with three shelves each. It was suggested to continue these built-ins up much further to give the room a more grandiose appearance. While I did continue these units upwards, I stopped them at a certain point so the top of the shelving units could be seen by the audience. I gave the tops of each shelving unit a similar curve to the new arch opening as another instance of design continuity.
The next thing we changed was completely removing the triangle roof piece that lived above the center wall that led into the inner room. I favored this piece of the design because the shape was reminiscent of the hanging framework I had downstage center. However, due to the set now being nine inches taller than I had it originally, the height of all the walls increasing because of sightlines, and with the new smaller shape of the downstage hanging framework, that roof piece became unnecessary visually and it no longer fit under the proscenium arch.
As I looked at the design as a whole, I felt that something downstage was lacking. I focused on the rounded coal fireplace. I knew that this piece was vital to the script as well as to the Director’s overall vision of the show. I knew that the shape and size of it could be
29 improved upon. I ended up turning the circular fireplace into an elliptical one.
Fig. 33 Final Fireplace photo
This design change was approved immediately, with the praise that this was very helpful and created more visually interesting downstage focal point in the design.
At this point in the design, the set was solid and approved, but there still remained the issue of masking for the stage left and stage right sides. As it was, the audience would have been able to see backstage on the left and right sides of the set. A traditional masking technique is to put up black walls to block views. It was a no-brainer to take this as an opportunity to further the design, and to not just have boring black walls. By following the design we knew that outside of the main living room was the garden. I went back to my research and found lattice images to have for those stage left and stage right areas. It was suggested that I narrow that research and go back to my cottage image (Fig. 17) and mimic the lattice design on the outside of that cottage. In the end, the Department of Theatre had two very similar lattice pieces in their storage, so we used those as seen in Figures 30 & 31.
The final steps to having a completed design was getting all the smaller details approved by Dr. Wade. We decided to go with fabric that was stretched over the walls
30 instead of actual wallpaper (Fig. 34). Patterns in fabric are generally larger than in wallpaper
and larger patterns are preferred for the theatre.
Fig. 34 Wall fabric purchased “Emma’s Garden.”
Other details that needed approval were final decisions for furniture pieces, their upholstery, and what the two paintings were actually going to look like.
For the furniture, I went to the department’s warehouse and brought back with us everything I thought was period appropriate, or what could be changed to be period appropriate. A day or two later, I brought the Director the upholstery swatches I had chosen for the chaise, side chair, and other chairs/bench/piano stool. The Director approved of my
choices and I got to work making the necessary adjustments to the pieces. For a week
straight, I did nothing every evening but redo the furniture. I painted every piece to be more
cohesive. I carved a new leg for the winged table that was missing one. I reupholstered the
chaise lounge, five chairs, piano stool, and the window bench. I repainted the desk and the chair that went with it. And regrettably, I cut out the back the Victorian piano we acquired
for free, rebuilt the back out of cardboard, and repainted the entire unit. (See Fig. 40 for the
furniture in the final design.)
Getting the two paintings, the portrait and the landscape, was the very last step. I had
used the same image for the portrait (Fig. 22) repeatedly throughout all my renderings. I
presented this same image to Dr. Wade. He liked the face, but wished it to be older and that
the man be in a military uniform. I found what a uniform from the early 1800s would look
31 like in Preben Kannik’s book, Military Uniforms in Color. Here is the comparison of original image to my final painting.
Fig. 22 Portrait research Louis Comfort Tiffany Self Portrait c.1870 – 75 Oil on canvas, 20 x 16 in. (50.8 x 40.6 cm) Fig. 35 National Academy of Design, Final Portrait photo New York(1257 – P) Peck, pg. 104
Seeking approval for the landscape proved to be more difficult. At first, I chose a painting with two huge ship vessels being tossed in an ocean storm with large waves crashing against the hulls of the ships. I thought this would be a good provocative choice, one because of Norwegian sailing pride, and two because it depicted the turmoil that goes on inside this house. It was determined that the scene was too active and distracting, and that the color palette was not right. Next, I chose a serene green field with a light blue sky. I was hoping this would be better because this painting was a third point for my color green theme to be shown, and the calm scene would oppose the action on stage. Again, this was not the right one, closer, but still not quite right. Finally I chose Wilhelm von Gegerfelt’s painting,
Mussel-pickers at Villerville, from Torsten Gunnarsson’s book Nordic Landscape Painting in the Nineteenth Century.
Fig. 36 Landscape research Wilhelm von Gegerfelt, Mussel-pickers at Villerville, Fig. 37 c. 1876-8. Oil on wood 40 x Final Landscape 60 cm. Nationalmuseum, photo Stockholm. Gunnarsson, pg. 139 Figure 38 is the painting that I did as a representation of the painting approved.
32 The finalization of my design came in two weeks. I had a great sense of
accomplishment and aggravation all tied up into one. I was so proud that I had a design that
all parties, including myself, were happy with, but I was also annoyed at myself that I had
gotten more accomplished in a two week period, than I had in four months over the summer.
From this I learned that I have a great weakness with long distance communication, but a great strength in personal collaboration.
33 Chapter 7: Finding “The Cool”
When designing a realistic space, it is required to find images, proof if you will, that
the elements that you want to include exist somewhere in the real world. If it is a historical
piece, it is preferable to find pieces that did exist and are historically accurate. These were the
tasks I had to undertake in designing Hedda Gabler.
I have shown the majority of my research images throughout this paper, however
determining that these were the images I was going to use posed a great challenge. During
my research endeavors I acquired an enormous amount of material and images that were all
of relative use. I started presenting my findings to Mr. Gudenius and he responded with the
following questions: Where do you want to incorporate that? Why did you choose this
image? What about it makes it visually stimulating? In other words, what was it about the
images I chose that made them special to me, and made me want to use them? These were
questions I did not have any answer to, other than, “I’m not sure, I think they’re cool.” And
to no surprise, as a graduate student striving for her Master’s degree, that answer was not
sufficient.
I had to take the time to look closer at my images of houses and rooms to figure out
what made them “cool”. Once I figured out how to look at my research in this new light, I
was able to whittle away at the huge pile before me to focus on the smaller group of images I
was going to use in my design. That brought me to the next part of my newly found process.
Once I knew what I liked about each image, how was I going to incorporate it into my design? This last step truly brought me the ability of distilling and organizing my images appropriately. This was because there were certain images that I found stimulating and knew the precise reason as to why, but there was no means of bringing it into the design. Filtering
34 through all my research in this manner brought forth the images you have seen thus far. I will use two examples here to explain this process in more detail:
The first image is of a living room in a Norwegian house:
Fig. 27 Furniture, wainscoting, wallpaper research Gaynor, p. 69
The living room as a whole was very appealing. I felt that this was the room that
Hedda had found herself in. But what was it about this atmosphere that made me feel that way? It was from this question that I began to pull out the details that answered this question and that I would put in my design. From this image, I saw that what appealed to me first was that it had all the furniture elements in it that I was required to have: a couch, round table, side chairs, piano, desk, leaf table, portraits, and paintings. But then I looked closer. I liked how the rug looked over the wood floor planks. I was drawn to the calm that room seemed to have with its light blue and cream color palette. It seemed like a color scheme that Hedda would hate with its brightness. More specifically than feelings, I was drawn to the blue chair rail with the blue paint continuing to the floor, the floral wallpaper, the crown moulding, and the plain baseboard. All of these were elements that I had in my final design.
The second image is of the exterior of a Norwegian cottage:
35 Fig. 17 Front framework research Gaynor, p. 91
This image also resonated with me in ways that I needed to pinpoint. I fell in favor of
this image because of the seclusion it emoted. It seemed as if this cottage was cut off from
the world and stood alone, brush covered. I also connected with the lattice work and arbor
over the front door. These pieces had an air of dignity in construction and class too them.
These were the kind the details I wanted in my design. I did take the arbor directly from this image into my very first rendering (Fig. 11) and it carried through my entire design process. I also mentioned how I used the lattice work from this image. But this image best explains how I learned to really look at my research.
I had a hard time focusing on the detail of the details to find the construction of them.
It was in the construction that made these pieces interesting, and I was continually missing it.
I, of course, was unaware of my oversight until it was brought to my attention. For example,
I sat down with the image, my drafting of the front hanging framework, and with my Thesis
Advisor. Mr. Gudenius had me look at the image, then look at my drafting. What was different? It turned out that I had designed the front hanging framework piece in a different and much simpler fashion than the actual piece was. I had missed all the points of this detail that made it interesting. I now had learned that all the spokes came from a center point in the
36 center circle of the framework. I now recognized a size difference in the three vertical spokes
on the far right and left sides of the framework. It also finally registered that the most center of those three vertical spokes came down past the horizontal one, at which point I had previously believed they met.
Everyone has moments in their life that some like to call “A-ha” moments, moments when it all clicks, or moments when the light bulb turns on. It was at this sit down with Mr.
Gudenius, that I had my moment. It all finally made sense. I really felt like I understood what
it meant to be a designer. Designers were people who could look at most forms of art,
architecture, nature, etc., and pinpoint what makes it visually interesting or design worthy. I
now had learned how to “find the cool”.
It was with this newfound confidence that I went back through my draftings and compared each element that I had designed to its respective research image. I had reached a final completed design.
37 Chapter 8: The Build Process
We all know at this point that the design was very late being finalized. This in turn
meant the shop was to have a late start on the build. We had an even later start because of a few factors against us. I was unaware that there was a difference between when my drawings were shop ready, and when they were approved by my thesis advisor. There was a good two week period when I was focusing on type size, drawing placement on the page, arrowhead size, etc., all things that I didn’t realize the shop didn’t care about. So I had no idea that I
should have given my drawings over to the scene shop two weeks before I had. Another
factor to our delay and slow pace was that we had two new scene shop faculty. Our Technical
Director, Ms. Gomez, was new this semester as well as our Assistant Technical Director, Mr.
Vierra. While they both worked well together and with me, there was a missing line of
communication between all of us and the head faculty on this project. Most specifically,
while our new staff thought the entire design needed to be built, painted and installed by
opening night, our head faculty expected it all done by our scheduled load-in days, which
was a full week and a half before opening night. I believed that it was because of this
specific miscommunication that the Technical Director didn’t seek out the draftings from me
sooner, that the Assistant Technical Director didn’t push for them either, and it was my fault
that I did not pay better attention to the schedule. So by the time the drawings reached the
shop and had been looked over, we had two weeks to build and paint the show before load in.
The next two weeks were a whirlwind of sixteen to seventeen hour days, pulled by
myself and the Technical Director. I had even spent the entire week prior to these two
dealing with all the furniture myself because my Properties Masters lacked the skills to assist
me, nor had the time that week to learn.
38 Everything in those next two weeks was a blur of trying to finish one thing and moving on to the next. During the day, I spent all of my time working on the detail pieces (a very long list in itself), mixing paint, sewing fabric for the walls and the curtains. The lab students and work studies built all the walls, cut all the platform legs, cut moulding, cut floor boards, etc. At night, the Technical Director and I painted all the pieces that were built earlier that day. Then load in came.
The Monday of load in, it was expected of us to have the entire floor platforms in and the walls up. What happened was not that at all. We had lab students and work studies in from 1pm to 5pm, about 7 people, only 3 working drill guns, and almost two hundred legs to put on all the platforms before we flipped them over and moved them into place. By 10pm,
Ms. Gomez and I had finished installing the last platform.
The next day, Tuesday, we worked on installing the walls. The Assistant Technical
Director decided to install the walls from stage right to stage left. By the time the last wall of the living room went up, we discovered that they were not square and we had to spend the rest of the day fixing the problem. We still hadn’t gotten the inner room walls up.
Wednesday, the Assistant Technical Director had the lab students and work studies install the inner room walls, without the bookshelf units, because we realized that one of them was built incorrectly. I spent the day installing floor boards. Ms. Gomez and I spent the evening in the shop painting more scenery and floor boards.
Thursday, I finished installing the floor boards, and the other crews installed all the masking walls. The rest of that day, I spent with my props crew helping them on tasks, from approving paper products, to teaching them how to use a drill. The rest of tech days are a blur of paint, fireplace tiles, moulding, hanging units, furniture, and props, but we all worked our
39 hardest to have everything built, painted (whether in the shop or onstage), and installed before preview.
40 Chapter 9: Tweaking the Design
It is tradition during tech for the set designers to sit at the design table, laptop at the ready, to take notes on what in their design they can improve upon before opening. In our world of GWU Theatre, usually that meant we take our own notes, the director’s set notes, and the notes of our supervising design professor. Unfortunately, this process did not happen officially because I spent every second I could in the scene shop. It was not until the last few days of the tech process that I sat down with my Thesis Advisor and we discussed things that can and needed to be changed, or tweaked as I like to say.
The largest and most time consuming “tweak” happened not once, but three times, to the downstage hanging units. The installation method of these hanging units was to bridle them from two points, the first catwalk and the second catwalk, because we could not hang them from the ceiling directly. It took the crew about three hours to install them. After they were first installed to the heights as specified in the approved drawings, the director thought they were too heavy, hung too low and wanted to get rid of them all together. Mr. Gudenius told him to let us adjust them and we would take it from there. The crew of work studies, supervised by our Mr. Vierra, raised all three units further in the air by two feet. This took another two hours. Now, Dr. Wade liked the height they were at, but they still weren’t quite right. Mr. Gudenius took me aside and suggested hanging the two side windows down directly from the first catwalk, and hanging the center unit four feet upstage from the second catwalk on two extension pipes. This method, including taking them all down, then putting them back up, took another three hours. By doing this the two side windows would be further upstage than they were, and the center unit would be further downstage than it was. As a whole, this created a forced perspective on the depth of the house as suggested by these three
41 hanging units. We all were pleased with the results, despite the long hours it took to find the
solution.
The next element that needed fixing comes in a close second to the hanging units.
The curtain I had picked for the center arch between the living room and the inner room
ending up being severely problematic. First, the curtain was too transparent and the fabric
was too light. I added a muslin lining to give it opacity and weight. Then there was a
problem with it’s aesthetic. The fabric was green with a high satin finish. The color looked
too cartoony and the sheen was bad for the
lighting. The curtain also lacked the proper fullness
that my thesis advisor and the director had expected. Fig. 38 Curtain fabric purchased “Embroidered Taffeta Then, with continued use, the curtain started breaking Dehli Fabric.”
from the curtain tracks we purchased. All in all this was slowly turning into a disaster. Mr.
Gudenius suggested that I go find new fabric to purchase as soon as possible and send it over to an associate’s company to have it done in one day because the Preview show was the day after. Ms. Gomez and I went over to a local fabric store, and looked around for an hour.
While panic was slowly creeping in, I finally found whole new bolt of a golden opaque
cotton fabric that matched a color in my wall fabric. We bought it with triumph and sent it
straight out to be made. When the curtain returned to us the morning of the Preview, it was
fabulous. And even better, it came with a borrow curtain track. This one was much more
substantial and worked beautifully.
All the other “tweaks” were minor to say in comparison to the previous two. It was
suggested, and they were completed in turn: brighten up the blue wainscoting background
color, darken the luan that made up the deck edge that touched the black floor to give it more
42 visual separation from the floor itself, tint all the furniture more to make it all match better, put a coat of clear gloss sealer on the inner room walls to make them look richer, and finally to switch the painted drop outside the inner room window to a cyclorama so that it could be lit better.
It was after these adjustments that we reach our final and fully produced design on opening night.
Fig. 39 Final Production photo 3
43 Chapter 10: Conclusion
The process of my thesis design of Hedda Gabler was one that improved me as a
designer and as an adult. As a designer, I took away from this experience the importance of
sticking to a schedule where other people are concerned. I also learned that if I want to
continue as a set designer, it means that I need to focus and keep up with my other
collaborative parties with persistence when dealing with long distance, digital
communication. I came to recognize through my own experience that the entire process
suffers if the momentum of the design is not pressed. I also discovered that I, as a designer, succeed greatly in face to face collaboration, where ideas can be bounced back and forth
across a table.
When I first went to graduate school, it was with the purpose of finding my place as a
designer in the world of theatre. I never expected to have so much growth and discovery as a
person. This process taught me how to be patient with myself. No one’s first idea is the
correct one, and sometimes, neither is their seventh. It takes patience and an open mind to
reach creative clarity. This was something I assumed I needed to have immediately or else I
would fail as a designer. However, patience is key in dealing with most any situation,
whether it is with other people, students, or myself.
This patience also needed to translate to my inability to see the design as a process. I
was very tentative about embracing the process, about how I would have wins and losses,
adjustments and finalities. I was so afraid of coming up with ideas that were going to be
rejected that at first I barely came up with any at all. Of course, as the time crunch was felt,
the ideas came out.
44 I also had to find a balance between being a student and being an equal as a designer.
I had a very hard time speaking up for myself at times because I knew in my head that I was a student, I didn’t know everything and I didn’t have all the answers. But when it came appropriate for me to stand up for myself or to take the lead in certain situations, I held back.
At the time I was unaware as to how I should approach these instances, so in the end, I did nothing. In retrospect, I have discovered courage in my convictions and will take the lead, respectfully, when necessary.
In the past, I had been accustomed to doing most things on my own. As an undergraduate designer, I never had any help. This way of thinking was a detriment to my mental state in this process. I constantly felt overwhelmed with what needed to be accomplished. I spent every free second I could working on this show and constantly going over and over the list of things that I needed to get done in my head. The list kept growing as more and more fell to me to accomplish. I even took over other peoples jobs because they didn’t have the skills to do the task. I truly drove myself into such a frantic state that I couldn’t see outside of that list. Having gone through that on this production, I will never succumb to feeling like I am my own island. In hindsight, I should have gone to the professors who have supported me these past three years and asked for help.
I am a true believer that if you go through life and don’t make any mistakes, then you have learned nothing. During the design process of Hedda Gabler, I made more than a few mistakes, but I always had the support of my professors and design team behind me. I am proud that I have walked away from this experience with many things learned and discovered. As a designer, I gained what I described as my designer eye. I assumed the task of researching specific elements to realize the practical and aesthetic objectives of the scenic
45 design. I discovered how to distill and organize appropriate elements for the thematic and required elements of this show. With this new skill, I know that I used these elements effectively to create a cohesive and beautiful design.
46 Works Cited
Antique Collectors’ Club. Pictorial Dictionary of British 19th Century Furniture Design :
an Antique Collectors’ Club Research Project / introd. by Edward Joy. Woodbridge,
Eng: Baron Publishing, 1977.
Binding, Paul. With Vine Leaves in His Hair: The Role of the Artist in Ibsen’s Plays.
Norwich: Norvik Press, 2006.
Brockett, Oscar G. History of the Theatre: Third Edition. Boston/London/Sydney/
Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977.
“Covington Writing Desk.” ImprovementsCatalog.com. 3 September 2008.
AG-_-Indoor%20Living%20and%20Decor%20Outlet-_-2008-_-8543400&code- macs=MP8NEXTAG&code=MP8NEXTAG> Donnelly, Marian C. Architecture in the Scandinavian Countries. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992. “Embroidered Taffeta Dehli Fabric.” Fabric.com. 12 September 2008. embroidered-taffeta-dehli-fabric.aspx> 47 “Emma’s Garden.” Fabric.com. 12 September 2008. decor-fabric-floral-fabric-waverly-floral-fabrics-waverly-emma-s-garden-br- jewel.aspx> Gaynor, Elizabeth. Scandinavia, Living Design. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, Distributed by Workman Pub., 1987. “Glossary of Technical Theatre Terms.” Theatrecrafts.com. 22 April 2009. Gunnarsson, Torsten. Nordic Landscape Painting in the Nineteenth Century. Yale University Press. New Haven & London. 1998. Kannik, Preben. Military Uniforms in Color. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Kavli, Guthorm. Norwegian Architecture, Past and Present. Oslo: Dreyers Forlog, 1958. Kunstsenter, Henie-Onstad. At Century’s End: Norwegian Artists and the Figurative Tradition, 1880-1990 : Henie-Onstad Art Center, Hovikodden, Norway, May 20- August 27, 1995 [and] the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C., October 11, 1995-January 7, 1996. Washington, D.C.: The Museum, 1995. Moi, Toril. Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism : Art, Theater, Philosophy. Oxford; 48 New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Peck, Amelia and Carol Irish. Candace Wheeler: The Art and Enterprise of American Design, 1875 – 1900. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001. Wood, Mara-Helen. Edvard Munch: The Frieze of Life. London: National Gallery Publications, 1992. 49 Appendix Assistant Technical Director – Assistant to the Technical Director. Usually assumes the tasks of leading work crews, organizing and creating necessary paperwork, and acts as a liaison between the crews and the Technical Director. Backstage – The part of the stage and theatre which is out of the sight of the audience. The service areas of the theatre. Blocking or (to) Block – The process of arranging moves to be made by the actors during the play, recorded by stage management in the prompt script. Positions at the start of scenes are noted, as are all movements around the stage Bridle – A vee-shaped arrangement of lifting equipment or rigging materials that enable load to be spread or shared between the 'legs' of the bridle. Also, to reduce structural spans between suspension lines by creating such 'vees' at pick up points on the structure, or an assembly arranged to create a lifting point where required between two or more structural points. Catwalk – An access walkway to equipment. Usually located in the ceiling above the audience. Center (as in – downstage center) – A location on stage referring to the most center part of the acting area. 50 Cyclorama – Usually shortened to just 'cyc' (pronounced sike). The Cyclorama is a curved plain cloth or plastered wall filling the rear of the stage or TV studio. Often used as a 'sky' backing to a traditional set, or as the main backing for a dance piece etc. The term is often loosely applied to a blue skycloth, or any flattage at the rear of the stage. Downstage – The part of the stage nearest to the audience. Draftings (also known as Drawings) – Plans from which carpenters and other technicians can build the scenery. Drop – A piece of scenic canvas, painted or plain, that is flown or fixed to hang in a vertical position. Extension pipes – Pieces of pipe used to extend equipment or scenery off of a fixed unit. Load-in – The process of moving set, props and other hardware into a theatre. Luan – A three layer plywood made from coarse grained tropical woods. Suitable for backing, filler or light duty bracing; not suitable for structural uses or where a smooth paintable finish is desired. Also known as Philippine Mahogany. Masking – Neutral material or designed scenery which defines the performance area and conceals the technical areas. 51 Preview show – A performance (or series of performances) before the 'official' opening night. Previews are used to run the show with an audience before the press are allowed in to review the show. This allows technical problems to be ironed out while ensuring the cast and creative team get audience feedback. Properties Master (Properties Master(s) plural) – The crew in charge of furnishings, set dressings, and all items large and small which cannot be classified as scenery, electrics or wardrobe. Proscenium arch – The opening in the wall which stands between stage and auditorium in some theatres; the picture frame through which the audience sees the play. Scrim – A coarse gauze. This fabric is useful in theatre because when light hits the material from the front, it appears solid. When light is shown on the fabric from behind, it becomes transparent. Stage left/right – Left/ Right as seen from the Actor's point of view on stage. Technical Director - Often shortened to 'TD' the exact role of the Technical Director changes according to the size of the theatre company. The TD co-ordinates all technical aspects of the production, from organizing crew calls to ensuring equipment 52 is ordered, to liaising with the designers and sometimes adapting a design to fit the venue. Thrust – Form of stage which projects into the auditorium so that the audiences are seated on at least two sides of the extended piece. Upstage – The part of the stage furthest from the audience. All definitions provided by “Glossary of Technical Theatre Terms.” Theatrecrafts.com. 53 Fig. 40 Moonlight 1893 Oil on canvas 140.5 x 137 cm (55 ¼ x 54 in.) Oslo, The National Gallery Wood, pg. 56 Fig. 41 The Kiss 1892 Oil on canvas 73 x 92 cm (28 ¾ x36 ¼ in.) Oslo, The National Gallery Wood, pg. 67 Fig. 42 Vampire 1893 Oil on canvas 80.5 x 100.5 cm (31 ¾ x39 ½ in.) Gothenburg, Museum of Art Wood, pg. 68 Fig. 43 Ashes 1894 Oil on canvas 120.5 x 141cm (47 ½ x55 ½ in.) Oslo, The National Gallery Wood, pg. 77 54 Fig. 44 Separation 1896 Oil on canvas 96.5 x 127 cm (38 x 50 in.) Oslo, Munch Museum Wood, pg. 84 Fig. 45 Melancholy 1894-5 Oil on canvas 81 x 100.5 cm (32 x39 ½ in.) Bergen, Rasmus Meyer Collection Wood, pg. 86 55 Fig. 46 Fig. 47 Built-in shelving Chair research research Gaynor, pg. 126 Gaynor, pg. 58 Fig. 48 Fig. 49 Living room door Living room desk and hinge and chair research research Gaynor, pg. 123 “Covington Writing Desk” Fig. 50 Green door, blue wainscoting, and red hallway research Harriet Backer. Baptizing in Tanum Church (1892) Oil on Canvas, 43 x 56 inches The National Gallery, Oslo, Norway Kunstsenter, pg. 64 56 Figure 51: Front Elevation 57 Figure 52: Groundplan 58 Figure 53: Section View 59 Figure 54: Deck Elevation 60 Figure 55: Deck Setup Elevation 61 Figure 56: Living Room Wall Elevation 62 Figure 57: Study and Hallway Wall Elevation 63 Figure 58: Wall Section 64 Figure 59: Wall Section 65 Figure 60: Study and Hallway Wall Elevation 66 Figure 61: Trellis Elevation 67 Figure 62: Step, Door, and Fireplace Elevation 68